AMB211 – Brand Management Criteria Sheet – Brand Positioning Analysis Name: _____________________________________________ Tutor: ________________________________ Result: ______% 7 100%-85% 6 84%-75% 5 74%-65% 4 64%-50% 3-1 49%-0% Frame of Reference Analysis 30% Target Market The target analysis is of a high standard. You provide a detailed and well researched Target Market including demographics, psychographics, and behavioural descriptors. The analysis includes key insights into the psychology of the target market and outline consumer’s brand knowledge structure which includes most important brand associations. Your target audience analysis is of a good standard and you provide a well-researched Target Market including demographics, psychographics, and behavioural descriptors. The analysis fails to include key insights or the correct insights into the psychology of the target market. You partially outline consumer’s brand knowledge structure containing main associations. Your target market analysis is average. Although, descriptors are provided, some items are missing or not explored. The analysis fails to include key insights or the correct insights into the psychology of the target market. You do not outline consumer’s brand knowledge structure containing main associations. Your target market analysis is poor and based mostly on demographics as target descriptors. The analysis fails to include key consumer insights and an understanding about consumers’ brand knowledge structure and associations. You fail to establish a frame of reference. There is little information about the target and/or the nature of competition and how they together form a frame of reference for brand positioning. Competitors The nature of competition is also established providing great detail on the shares of main competitors and level of competition involved. You outline how and where your product is positioned within this frame. You provide an outline how and where your product is positioned but some detail about competitors and the nature of competition might be missing. You provide a summary and analysis of competitors and outline how and where your product is positioned. You provide a concise summary of competitors with little or no analysis. There may be an outline of how and where your product is positioned but it is merely descriptive. Positioning Statement A clear positioning statement is established with the understanding of both target and competitors. A positioning statement is established but more understanding of the target and the competition is needed. A positioning statement is partially established but more understanding of the target and the competition is needed. There is confusion about what the positioning statement is. More understanding of the target and the competition is needed. Points of Parity (POP) and Points of Difference (POD) 30% Discussion of POPs and PODs must be made against specific competitors. All key points of parity and points of difference are analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly considered. There is a clear understanding of what must be met if consumers are to perceive your product as a legitimate and credible player within the frame of reference and you analyze the basis of which differentiation is made Most key points of parity and points of difference are analyzed and considered but some key points are not mentioned. There is an understanding of what must be met if consumers are to perceive your product as a legitimate and credible player within the frame of reference and you analyze the basis of which differentiation is made. You also Some key points of parity and points of difference are identified and analyzed. There is confusion about what must be met if consumers are to perceive your product as a legitimate and credible player within the frame of reference. You discuss how PODs meet criteria of desirability, deliverability, and Few points of parity and points of difference are mentioned and
analyzed. There is confusion about what must be met if consumers are to perceive your product as a legitimate and credible player within the frame of reference. Many details of how PODs meet criteria of desirability, deliverability, and differentiation are missing. No analysis is offered. Points of Parity are repeated without scrutiny. and you clearly show how these meet criteria of desirability and deliverability. discuss how these meet criteria of desirability and deliverability. differentiation but many details are missing. Recommendations 30% Recommendations are directly responsive to problems and provide effective, efficient, feasible recommendations. Your argument is sound and convincing. You show a clear understanding of how a point of difference can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association. Recommendations are actionable and responsive to problems. They’re effective, efficient, and feasible. Your argument needs improvement and more evidence may be required. You show some understanding of how a point of difference can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association. Recommendations are adequate but need attention regarding who will implement them, how they’ll be implemented, and what needs to get done. Arguments need improvement and more detailed information/evidence is required. You may understand how a point of difference can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association but you are not able to articulate it completely. Recommendations suggest simple solutions and are either vague, unrealistic, too expensive, or too complex. Arguments need improvement and more detailed information / evidence is required. You understanding of how a point of difference can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association is poor. Recommendations are not related to the problem or not provided. There is no understanding of how a point of difference can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association is poor. Professional Communication (10%) Grammar, spelling, punctuation Makes virtually no grammatical or Syntactical errors. Establishes credibility with the audience. Proofreads well enough to Eliminate most grammatical errors; may have minor problems with punctuation or usage. Writes generally correct prose; Occasionally fails to catch minor grammatical errors. Makes disruptive grammatical/syntactical errors such as run-ons, fragments, unintelligible sentences. Makes repeated grammatical or syntactical errors making the report hard to understand. Referencing You support your analysis using several sources from the literature. Use of APA reference format without any citation or referencing mistakes. Citation information is complete. You support your analysis using some sources from the literature. Use of APA referencing format with minor errors in applying convention. Citation information is complete. You use sources from the literature but its support to your argument is questionable. Mostly used APA referencing format but with some mistakes. Citation information generally complete. Your analysis lack literature support. Used some reference format but not APA and/or had many referencing mistakes. Citation attempted but elements are missing. No references provided or No referencing format was used. Communication Style and Format Demonstrates a sophisticated grasp of the language; writes in a fluid manner; varies syntax and vocabulary; uses original language. Format helps readers understand and remember information. Writes clearly, concisely, and coherently; employs syntactical variety with general success. Creates a friendly, business-like, positive style. Format helps readers find the information they need. Writes serviceable prose; uses active voice, strong, action verbs; rarely uses jargon or clichés. Readable format. Writes in a notably awkward manner: misuses words and idioms; uses slang; wordy; uses some borrowed language. Imbalanced or cluttered design. Uses garbled style. Plagiarizes. Format interferes with readability.